If Bayes generates the right answer here, whereas naive Popperian reasoning without it goes spectacularly wrong, maybe this should be suggesting something. Also it ignores my main point that Poppers theory does not admit weak criticisms, of which the coin coming up heads is just one example.
What you appear to be suggesting amounts to Bayesian epistemology done wrong.
For coin flipping analysis, use Bayes’ theorem (not Bayesian epistemology).
If Bayes generates the right answer here, whereas naive Popperian reasoning without it goes spectacularly wrong, maybe this should be suggesting something. Also it ignores my main point that Poppers theory does not admit weak criticisms, of which the coin coming up heads is just one example.
Whether you have a double-headed coin or not is still a form of knowledge.
The Bayes’ theorem:good, Bayesian epistemology:bad perspecitive won’t wash.